Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Machiavelli]

In this case the gang members were initially arrested 4 years ago and have already been released. These are people with multiple murder convictions. If they can be released, why can't Amanda?

I don't know anything of these cases.
Whoever speaks about mafia cases should know what they are talking about.

Edited by kmortis: 

Keep it civil

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

Is that an eyewitness account? (do you personally know her or her friends). A simple 'yes' or 'no' will do.

Otherwise, do you have a source you'd care to share? I think "Murder in Italy" pretty much says the same. However, the guilters don't like that source.

It would be a stretch for me to say I know her, but I met her when I went to Italy in June, and I spent a couple of hours with her. She was friendly and cheerful and she was bantering with the staff.

I have gotten to know her family pretty well. Chris and I have become good friends. I have also met many of Amanda's friends. They think highly of her, and they all describe her the same way. She is quirky and uninhibited, with a tendency to blurt things out that are perhaps a little too frank, but she is extremely kind-hearted. She has siblings and cousins who are quite a few years younger than she, and they think the world of her because she always took an interest in them and was really nice to them when they were little.

There's an interesting phenomenon on the Internet, in which people who have never met Amanda think they have a better handle on what she is like than the people who have known her for many years.

 

[RWVBWL]

Hi all,
a little bit late on my last post,
I'll re-do it and post a short bit about the latest from Perugia Shock's Frank Sfarzo,
you know, a local who calls it like it is...
His latest post is a beauty!

http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2010/11/amanda-knox-and-sabrina-misseri.html

When you see the entire castle about to collapse and a completely new scenario emerging, you need something to save your accusations. A nice murder weapon, preferably.
A knife appears for you, with the victim’s DNA on the blade and the user’s DNA on the handle.
A strange murder weapon that alone couldn't have inflicted all the wounds.
A strange murder weapon, that the murderers didn’t toss, but instead brought back to their kitchen. They didn’t put it in a more obscure drawer, but rather in the very first drawer along with all the other cutlery. They could use it every day. They could remember they killed with it at every breakfast, lunch, and dinner they had at home. They had four days to wash and rewash it, but they chose not to clean it well, so they could taste the victim in their bread when they were slicing it. They had four days to replace it with another one, but they chose to leave it there, in case the police wanted to come seize it.
A strange murder weapon, which had the victim’s substance not between handle and blade --where it was supposed to have remained after a cleaning-- but in the middle of the blade.
A strange murder weapon on which nobody saw the substance (before the test, indeed, it was invisible. After the test it was finished (totally wiped out)).
A strange murder weapon, that didn’t have what was supposed to have been on the blade --the blood of the victim-- but her DNA, only her DNA. It didn’t have what was supposed to have been on the handle --the fingerprints of its user-- but her DNA, only her DNA (for leaving blood and fingerprints you definitely need a victim and a hand. For leaving just DNA there are other possible scenarios...).
Hmmm...
RWVBWL

PS-Charlie Wilkes, your work here and elsewhere to help fight the personal attacks against Amanda Knox and her family,
plus correct the mis-perceptions and downright lies that many out there spew forth is, IMHO highly commendable!
Keep it up...

 

[Machiavelli]

Gosh, has the Mafia in Italy been democratically elected to office by a significant proportion of the general population then? Because that's why the Israeli government made concessions to Hamas, and the British government made concessions to Sinn Fein/IRA. Both organisations had political wings which came to represent the majority of the population in contested areas (Gaza/West Bank and the republican areas of Northern Ireland, respectively).

And there was me thinking that the Cosa Nostra was nothing more than a well-organised crime syndicate.......

A "well-organised crime syndicate"? Did you think mafia was invented by Quentin Tarantino?

 

[Machiavelli]

That is exactly the reaction I had when you posted your crime scene analysis.

Nobody prevents you from providing the correct info on the details you feel to object.

I see however that your conclusions on the bathmat footprint were very different from mine. We had the same material though.

 

[LondonJohn]

A "well-organised crime syndicate"? Did you think mafia was invented by Quentin Tarantino?

Please don't patronise me. What exactly IS the Mafia in modern Italy then? Does it have a political wing*? Or is is still nothing much more than a criminal fraternity which operates protection rackets and engages in illegal drugs trafficking and loan sharking?

* I'm aware that the Mafia "assists" politicians in elections by "supplying votes" in return for post-election "favours". But this is nothing more than illegal, undemocratic vote-rigging and kick-backs. It's totally different from a legitimate political wing which campaigns on its own platform.

 

[LondonJohn]

Nobody prevents you from providing the correct info on the details you feel to object.

I see however that your conclusions on the bathmat footprint were very different from mine. We had the same material though.

Yes, you did both work from the same source material. But one person made a somewhat objective analysis of the print, while the other person's analysis was heavily polluted by confirmation bias and pseudoscientific nonsense. I wonder which was which...?

 

[Alt+F4]

She did not confess to actually wielding the knife and killing Meredith. But she most definitely DID confess to being there in the house during the murder. She confessed to meeting with the murderer and bringing him to the house. She confessed to not doing anything to help the victim or alert the authorities after the murder. And she implicitly confessed to lying to the police and protecting the killer between November 2nd and November 5th. And she accused Lumumba of being the killer.

She never confessed to murder.

 

[Alt+F4]

In contrast to, say, a quiet, dark November night in an otherwise empty house overlooking a deserted ravine, with a pretty definite 1-vs-1 situation.......

Oh, so now Rudy knew the house was empty when he "broke in"? How did he know that?

 

[Alt+F4]

It would be a stretch for me to say I know her, but I met her when I went to Italy in June, and I spent a couple of hours with her. She was friendly and cheerful and she was bantering with the staff.

Charlie, you had a visitation with her at the prison?

 

[Katody Matrass]

Oh, so now Rudy knew the house was empty when he "broke in"? How did he know that?

That's a good question. Was there any way for him to make sure there's nobody home? Can you think about any possible ways?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh, so now Rudy knew the house was empty when he "broke in"? How did he know that?

Errr........?

Maybe because he could have cased the house for 10-15 minutes and checked that there were no lights on (on a dark November evening) and no noises coming from inside the building?

Maybe he might even have knocked on the front door as part of his casing activity, ready with an innocent question if someone answered the door (e.g. "do you know if the boys downstairs are around over the weekend?"), but drawing the obvious conclusion from the fact that nobody did come to answer the door?

Maybe because he (like most burglars) would have retreated to the shadows after throwing the rock through the window, and waited for another 5 minutes or so to check that there was no sign of activity inside the house?

 

[Alt+F4]

That's a good question. Was there any way for him to make sure there's nobody home? Can you think about any possible ways?

I can't think of how he would know that Laura was in Rome. As for the guys downstairs, they were also away, and he might have known that. They could have, however, come home early, right?

The odds of the nursery school being empty were much higher.

 

[Alt+F4]

Errr........?

Maybe because he could have cased the house for 10-15 minutes and checked that there were no lights on (on a dark November evening) and no noises coming from inside the building?

Maybe he might even have knocked on the front door as part of his casing activity, ready with an innocent question if someone answered the door (e.g. "do you know if the boys downstairs are around over the weekend?"), but drawing the obvious conclusion from the fact that nobody did come to answer the door?

Maybe because he (like most burglars) would have retreated to the shadows after throwing the rock through the window, and waited for another 5 minutes or so to check that there was no sign of activity inside the house?

It was only 8:30-9:00pm and seven (or eight?) people lived in the house. The odds of someone coming home was very high

 

[Katody Matrass]

It was only 8:30-9:00pm and seven (or eight?) people lived in the house. The odds of someone coming home was very high

Well, Rudy miscalculated that probability for sure.
But I wouldn't blame him. He knew that the guys downstairs were out of town for the long weekend. As were most of students in Perugia. He checked that the flat above was empty and assumed the tenants are away, just like the guys below. Besides, taking risks is a burglar's job. And Rudy wasn't a brightest burglar.

 

[Mary_H]

__________________
For purposes of discussion, let's suppose the lovebirds are innocent of murder, in which case the intent of their scheme would be different than if guilty.

The answer to your question, I think, then comes down to Amanda's abnormality, a certain cockiness, conjoined with a touch of narcissism.

From a Cost/Benefit Analysis, the boat was already rocking in that they were uncomfortable with the situation. A sort of seasickness had already surfaced. (And didn't Amanda say in an intercepted message something like "I can't take this any longer?")

She didn't think that in accusing Patrick that she was incriminating herself. As she said in her court testimony that after signing her DECLARATION the night of November 5th, she expected to go back to the comfort of Raffaele's home (not to prison).

When Amanda was devising her scheme on November 5th, she may have been so confident of Patrick's guilt---having spoken to him earlier that day---she saw only the advantage in having the murderer arrested, the Perugian women now safe, and her daily interrogations ended. Of course all this anticipated benefit would depend on the cops getting independent evidence against Patrick. Maybe even a confession. If that had happened Amanda and Raffaele could stroll off into the sunset.

Of course, she miscalculated, which is pretty much what she seems to have said in her personal letter to Madison Paxton about her confession/interrogation...writing to her "I f**ked up."

If I were an innocentisti that's the way I'd see the police interrogations of Raffaele and Amanda the night of November 5th. Raffaele says explicitly in his Diary that Amanda asked him to lie. There is no escaping that fact, and the most charitable interpretation of the fact is to take it at face value. Amanda asked him to lie. Amanda's scheme makes more sense to me than a double-whammy false internalized confession/accusation. (Whether a textbook example or not.)

///

It's a creative approach, Fine, but I'm afraid I see even less reason for them to change their stories if they were innocent than if they were guilty. For one thing, I don't think we really have any strong evidence that they weren't content with the ways things were. We also don't have any evidence that Amanda is cocky and narcissistic, as others here have pointed out. Even if she were, there are other ways to stir up trouble and get attention than to purposely name yourself as an eyewitness to a murder you didn't report.

If Amanda really thought Patrick were guilty, she would simply have gone to the police and let them know that. She wouldn't have devised an elaborate scheme that included Raffaele lying about her going to Le Chic; she would just have said she went to Le Chic.

When Amanda wrote that message to Madison, she was regretting that she had been played by the cops, and was blaming herself for something that wasn't her fault.

 

[Alt+F4]

He knew that the guys downstairs were out of town for the long weekend.

They could have come home early. Isn't that the explanation why Amanda knocked on their door the next morning even though she, too, knew they were away?

 

[Justinian2]

It would be a stretch for me to say I know her, but I met her when I went to Italy in June, and I spent a couple of hours with her. She was friendly and cheerful and she was bantering with the staff.

I have gotten to know her family pretty well. Chris and I have become good friends. I have also met many of Amanda's friends. They think highly of her, and they all describe her the same way. She is quirky and uninhibited, with a tendency to blurt things out that are perhaps a little too frank, but she is extremely kind-hearted. She has siblings and cousins who are quite a few years younger than she, and they think the world of her because she always took an interest in them and was really nice to them when they were little.
There's an interesting phenomenon on the Internet, in which people who have never met Amanda think they have a better handle on what she is like than the people who have known her for many years.

From the top line of the Chart of Human Evaluation:

Emotion: Eagerness, exhilaration
Sexual interest: Intense interest in childrenActual worth: Creative and constructive
Ethic Level Bases ethics on reason. Very high ethic level.
Handling of truth: High concept of truth
Courage level: High courage level
Speech: Strong, able, swift and full exchange of belief and ideas.
Method Used by subject to handle others: Gains support by creative enthusiasm and vitality backed by reason
Ability to experience present time pleasure: Finds existence very full of pleasure.How much others like you: Loved by many
From the criminal line (1.1) of the Chart of Human Evaluation:

How much others like you: Generally despisedI could continue, but you know who I'm referring to.

Ya, I know. This is the take on the world by LRH, the founder of Scientology. I don't belong to the Church, but I still respect the works of LRH.

 

[Katody Matrass]

They could have come home early.

They surely could.

Isn't that the explanation why Amanda knocked on their door the next morning even though she, too, knew they were away?

I don't think she knew it. But it's not relevant.

 

[RWVBWL]

Charlie, you had a visitation with her at the prison?

Hi Alt-F4,
Between Charlie Wilkes and Perugia local resident and writer Frank Sfarzo, I feel that I, at least, get the other side of the story correct. You know, the story that seemingly might actually have truth to it, instead of some far-fetched, group-sex-crime gone-wrong story that Prosecutor Mignini has given the world.

With that said, I read your posting in response to my question yesterday regarding Rudy Guede breaking into the childrens school:

Ah, you are referring to the testimony of Maria del Prato, the owner of the nursery school. He has been caught burglarizing the school by her, yet he doesn't attempt to kill her, doesn't assult her and even waits around while she calls the police.

Quote:
Nursery school owner Maria del Prato testified in court today that she had stopped by her school Saturday Oct. 27, when it was closed, and came upon Guede in her office.

"I asked him who he was," she told the court, "and he replied perfectly calmly, even though I had caught him red-handed." Del Prato said he told her he was "a kid from Perugia" who had arrived the night before and had nowhere to sleep.

Del Prato doubted his story, as her locker had been opened, and she said she believed Guede was looking for something to steal. Some small change was missing, and Del Prato noticed Guede had a laptop, but he told her it was his.

When police arrived at the school, they searched Guede's backpack and found a large knife with a 16-inch blade that had been taken from the school kitchen.

Guede was later booked at a Milan police station and accused of theft, receiving stolen goods, and in possession of a weapon. He was also fingerprinted and then released.

I STILL can not fathom why Rudy Guede was not locked up in the slammer. Maybe it was already full of Mafia gangsta's?
Kidding aside, I wonder if he was ordered to appear in court for the charges?
Was he even given a ticket, such as, you know Amanda Knox recieved, for having a loud going-away party.
Do you or anyone else know?

I have sometimes read that Rudy might have been a police informant, and that combined with what appears to be just a little slap on the wrist for the crime of theft, receiving stolen goods, and in possession of a weapon makes a guy wonder what was goin' on...

Wait a sec!
What you posted above that I am referencing forgets something:
The cops did not charge Rudy Guede with BREAKING+ENTERING the school!
Nor, it appears, even lock him up.
Now what's up with that?
Hmmm...
RWVBWL